arxiv:quant-ph/ v1 18 Jul 1998
|
|
- Rodger Lee
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Continuous quantum measurement with observer: pure wavefunction evolution instead of decoherence Alexander N. Korotkov GPEC, Departement de Physique, Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université de la Méditerranée, 3288 Marseille, France and Nuclear Physics Institute, Moscow State University, Moscow 9899, Russia (February, 28) arxiv:quant-ph/9875v 8 Jul 998 We consider a continuous measurement of a two-level system (double-dot) by weakly coupled detector (tunnel point contact nearby). While usual treatment leads to the gradual system decoherence due to the measurement, we show that the knowledge of the measurement result can restore the pure wavefunction at any time (this can be experimentally verified). The formalism allows to write a simple Langevin equation for the random evolution of the system density matrix which is reflected and caused by the stochastic detector output. Gradual wavefunction collapse and quantum Zeno effect are naturally described by the equation. The problem of quantum measurements has a long history, however, it still attracts considerable attention and causes discussions and even some controversy, mainly about the wavefunction collapse postulate [ 4]. One of the leading modern ideas is to replace this postulate by the gradual decoherence of the density matrix due to the interaction with the detector, so that this decoherence can be described by the Schrödinger equation and, hence, no additional postulate is necessary (see, e.g. Ref. [5]). Let us also mention the hidden variables idea [6] and the approach of a stochastic evolution of the wavefunction [7 5]. The renewed interest to the measurement problem is justified by the development of the experimental technique, which allows more and more experimental studies of the quantum measurement in optics and mesoscopic structures [6 2]. The problem has also close connection to the rapidly growing fields of quantum cryptography [2] and quantum computing [22]. In the recent experiment [9] with which-path interferometer the suppression of Aharonov-Bohm interference due to the detection of which path an electron chooses, was observed. The weakly coupled quantum point contact was used as a detector. The interference suppression in this experiment can be quantitatively described by the decoherence (dephasing [23]) due to the measurement process [24 27] (see also Refs. [28,29]). In the present paper we consider somewhat different setup which is simpler and more basic in the context of quantum measurements: two quantum dots occupied by one electron and a weakly coupled detector measuring the position of the electron. As a detector we assume small tunnel contact ( point contact ) close to the double-dot so that the detector barrier height depends on the electron position. This setup was analyzed in Ref. [24] (see also Ref. [27]) in which the equations for the double-dot density matrix evolution affected by the decoherence due to the measurement process, were derived. However, the decoherence approach cannot describe the detector output that is a separate interesting problem [27,3] analyzed in the present paper. We answer two related questions: how the detector current looks like (as a function of time) and what is the proper double-dot density matrix for particular detector output. (Notice that our result for the first question contradicts the point of view presented in Ref. [27].) We show that the decoherence rate derived in Refs. [24 27] coincides with the lower bound determined by the knowledge about the system gradually acquired during the continuous measurement (thus proving that the considered model of point contact corresponds to an ideal detector). This lower bound is derived assuming that the system can be still described by the pure wavefunction after each particular realization of the random detector output. Hence, the fact that the lower bound is really achieved for the point contact as a detector, leads us to the conclusion that the decoherence in this case is just a consequence of ignoring the measurement result, i.e. averaging over all possible realizations. The observer who follows the detector output is able to obtain the complete knowledge about the system: he knows the wavefunction at each moment of time. The measurement process modifies the wavefunction, for example, leading to gradual localization. From the observer s point of view the evolution of the wavefunction can be described as a stochastic process related to the detector output. We develop a simple formalism of this evolution and briefly discuss the philosophical aspect of the presented result. The formalism can be applied to more general case of a two-level system measured by weakly coupled detector; however, for the definiteness we speak about the double-dot and point contact. Similar to Ref. [24] let us describe the double-dot system and the measuring point contact by the Hamiltonian where H = H DD + H PC + H int, () H DD = ǫ 2 (c c c 2 c 2) + H(c c 2 + c 2 c ) (2)
2 is the standard Hamiltonian of the double-dot system [3] with tunneling coupling H between dots (H is assumed to be real), H PC = l E l a l a l + r E r a r a r + l,r T(a r a l + a l a r) (3) describes the tunneling through the point contact (for simplicity T is real and does not depend on energies), and the coupling between the double-dot and the detector is assumed to be H int = l,r T c 2 c 2(a r a l + a l a r), (4) i.e. the tunneling matrix element for the point contact is T when the first dot is occupied while it is T + T when the electron is in the second dot. The voltage V across the point contact is sufficiently large, ev T 2 ρ (ρ is the density of states), so that the simple description of the point contact is possible (see Ref. [24]). Basically we can say that the average current I = 2πT 2 ρ l ρ r e 2 V/ h flows through the detector when the electron is in the first dot, and the current is I 2 = I + I = 2π(T + T) 2 ρ l ρ r e 2 V/ h when the second dot is occupied. We make an important assumption of weak coupling between the double-dot and the detector (actually, it would be better to call it weakly responding detector), I I = (I + I 2 )/2, (5) so that many electrons (N > (I / I) 2 ) should pass through the point contact before the observer is able to distinguish which dot is occupied (i.e. when the uncertainty due to the detector shot noise becomes less than I). This assumption is necessary to allow the classical description of the detector, namely to neglect the coherence between the quantum states with different number of electrons passed through the detector (we implicitly assume that the corresponding collapse happens on the time scale t (e/i )(I / I) 2, much faster than typical evolution of the double-dot density matrix). One of the main results of Ref. [24] is the equation for the decoherence rate Γ d of the nondiagonal element σ 2 (t) of the double-dot density matrix due to the measurement by the point contact: Γ d = ( I /e I 2 /e) 2 /2. In the weakly-coupled limit (5) it can be replaced by Γ d = ( I) 2. (6) 8 ei The decoherence has an obvious relation to the low frequency shot noise in the detector (the origin can be traced to Eq. (4)), so let us write Eq. (6) in the form Γ d = ( I) 2, (7) 4 S I where S I = 2eI is the usual Schottky formula for the shot noise spectral density S I. Equation (7) has been also obtained in Refs. [25,26] for the quantum point contact as a detector, the difference in that case is S I = 2eI ( T ) where T is the transparency of the channel [32] (while in the case considered above we implicitly assumed T [33]). As shown in Ref. [27], Eq. (7) should be modified (decoherence rate increases) if the phase of transmitted and reflected electrons in the detector is sensitive to the double-dot state; we assume that there is no such a dependence in our case. Concluding the introductory part of the paper let us write the full equation for the double-dot density matrix in the decoherence approach: σ = σ 22 = ih h (σ 2 σ 2 ), (8) σ 2 = iǫ h σ 2 + ih h (σ σ 22 ) ( I) 2 σ 2. (9) 4 S I Notice that the decoherence rate (7) was derived in Refs. [24 27] without any account of the information provided by the detector, implicitly assuming that the measurement result is just ignored. Now let us study how this additional information affects the double-dot density matrix. We start with the completely classical case when there is no tunneling between dots (H = ) and the initial density matrix of the system does not have nondiagonal elements, σ 2 () = (then obviously σ 2 (t) = for any t > ). We can assume that the electron is actually located in one of the dots, but we just do not know exactly in which one, and that is why we use probabilities σ () and σ 22 () = σ (). The detector output is the fluctuating current I(t). The fluctuations grow when we examine I(t) at smaller time scales, so we need some averaging in time ( low-pass filtering ), at least in order to neglect the problem of individual electrons passing through the point contact. Let us always work at sufficiently low frequencies, f S I /e 2, for which the low frequency limit S I for the spectral density is well achieved. Provided that ith dot is occupied, the probability to have a particular value for the current averaged over time τ, I = τ I(t)dt, is given by the Gaussian distribution P i ( I, τ) = (2πD) /2 exp ( ( I I i ) 2 /2D ), D = S I /2τ. () Notice that this equation obviously does not change if we divide the time interval τ into pieces and integrate over all possible average currents for each piece (to consider only positive currents the typical timescale τ should be sufficiently long, S I /τ Ii 2, that is always satisfied within the assumed low frequency range). After the measurement during time τ the observer acquires additional 2
3 knowledge about the system and should change the probabilities σ ii according to the standard Bayes formula. (It says that a posteriori probability p (A) of an event A after the knowledge that the event F has happened, is equal to p (A) = p(a)p(f A)/ B [p(b)p(f B)] where p(a) is a priori probability and p(f A) is the conditional probability of event F given event A.) Hence, σ (τ)= σ ()exp[ ( I I ) 2 /2D] { σ ()exp[ ( I I ) 2 /2D] + σ 22 ()exp[ ( I I 2 ) 2 /2D] }, σ 22 (τ)= σ (τ). () Notice that we do not use any collapse postulate here because we speak so far about the classical measurement. Now let us assume that the initial state was fully coherent, σ 2 () = σ ()σ 22 () (while still H = ǫ = ). Since the detector is sensitive only to the position of electron, the detector current will behave exactly the same way [34] and the probability of a particular value I is still given by P( I, τ) = σ ()P ( I, τ) + σ 22 ()P 2 ( I, τ). (2) After the measurement during time τ we should obviously assign the same values for σ (τ) and σ 22 (τ) as in Eq. (), but the question is not so trivial for the nondiagonal element σ 2 (τ). Nevertheless, we can easily write the upper bound: Reσ 2 (τ) σ 2 (τ) σ (τ)σ 22 (τ). (3) Let us imagine the observer who does not want to know the result of the measurement (which actually exists!). Then using the probability distribution of different outcomes given by Eq. (2) and the upper bound (3) for each realization, he can calculate the upper bound for σ 2 (disregarding the actual result): σ(τ)σ Re σ 2 (τ) 22(τ) P( I, τ)d I = ( ) σ ()σ 22 () exp ( I)2 τ. (4) 4S I This upper bound exactly coincides with the actual result given by decoherence approach (9). This fact forces us to accept somewhat surprising statement that Eq. (3) gives not only the upper bound, but the true value of the nondiagonal matrix element, i.e. the pure state remains pure after the measurement (no decoherence occurs) if we know the measurement result [35]. Simultaneously, we prove that the point contact detector considered in Refs. [24 26] causes the slowest possible decoherence of the measured system (disregarding the measurement result), and hence represents an ideal detector in this sense. In contrast, the result of Ref. [29] shows that a single-electron transistor with large tunnel resistances and biased by relatively large voltage, is not an ideal detector (for the same amount of the backinfluence on the system it provides an observer with less information than an ideal detector). Similarly, the generalization of the quantum point contact considered in Ref. [27] describes a non-ideal detector. If the initial state of the double-dot is not purely coherent, σ 2 () < σ ()σ 22 (), we can treat it as the statistical combination of purely coherent and purely incoherent states with the same σ () and σ 22 (). Then instead of Eq. (3) we have σ 2 (τ) = σ 2 () [σ (τ)σ 22 (τ)] /2. (5) /2 [σ ()σ 22 ()] Eq. (5) together with Eq. () is the central result of the present paper; these equations give the density matrix of the measured system with account of the measurement result [36]. The measurement should lead to the localization of the wavefunction in one of the dots. This is a random process, and the observer who continuously follows the detector output can describe it as the random evolution of the wavefunction (provided the pure initial state), or more generally the random evolution of the density matrix. Eqs. () (2) and (5) allow to simulate this evolution. For example, we can use Monte-Carlo method and do the following. First we choose the timestep τ satisfying inequalities e 2 /S I τ S I /( I) 2 and draw a random number for I according to the distribution (2). Then we update σ (t) and σ 22 (t) using this value of I and repeat the procedure many times (the distribution for the current averaged over the interval t = τ is new every timestep because of changing σ ii (t) which are used in Eq. (2)). The nondiagonal matrix element can be calculated at any time using Eq. (5). This Monte-Carlo procedure can be equivalently described by the nonlinear Langevin-type equation for the density matrix evolution (equation for σ is sufficient): σ = R = σ σ 22 2 I S I [ ] σ22 σ I + ξ(t), (6) 2 where the random process ξ(t) has zero average and the spectral density S ξ = S I (only low-frequency limit matters). The term in square brackets is equal to I(t) I, so it is directly related to the detector output. One can easily check that calculation of actual σ (t) evolution for known detector output I(t) using Eq. (6) coincides with the direct result given by Eq. (). Equation (6) is closely connected with the Quantum State Diffusion approach of Refs. [8 ] (for review, see Ref. [5]). Actually, it is possible to obtain mathematically such a stochastic differential equation for any equation for the density operator [8 ]. In our treatment, 3
4 however, we derived Eq. (6) using only basic physical reasoning. Figure shows a particular result of the Monte-Carlo simulation for the symmetric initial state, σ () = σ 22 () = /2 (notice that σ 2 () does not affect the evolution if H = ). Thick line shows the random evolution of σ (t). Equation (6) describes the gradual localization in one of the dots (first dot in case of Fig. ). Let us define the typical localization time τ loc as τ loc = 2S I /( I) 2 (we choose the exponential factor at σ = σ 22 = /2). Then it is exactly equal to the time τ dis = 2S I /( I) 2 necessary for the observer to distinguish between two states (defined as the relative shift of two Gaussians by two standard deviations), and τ loc = τ d /2 where τ d = Γ d. The probability of final localization in the first dot is equal to σ () (as it should be) that can be easily proven because the procedure described above conserves σ (τ) σ 22 (τ) averaged over realizations. The detector current basically follows the evolution of σ (t) but the additional noise is large and depends on the bandwidth. The dashed line in Fig. shows the detector current averaged over the running window with the duration t = S I /( I) 2 while the thin solid line is current I averaged starting from t =. Our result for the detector current contradicts the statement made in Ref. [27] that the detector output in each particular realization should correspond to the average double-dot population, I i I iσ ii (), which we believe is incorrect as well as the statement that σ ii can be measured in a single experiment without a collapse of wavefunction. Now let us consider the general case of the double-dot system with non-zero tunneling H between dots. If the frequency Ω of internal oscillations in the double-dot is sufficiently low so that the low-frequency limit for the detector shot noise is well achieved, Ω = (4H 2 + ǫ 2 ) /2 / h S I /e 2, (7) then we can use the same formalism just adding the slow evolution due to finite H (the product Ωτ loc can be both larger or smaller than unity, so in this sense the coupling between double-dot and the detector can be arbitrary large). The particular realization can be either simulated by Monte-Carlo procedure similar to that outlined above [now update of σ 2 (t) using Eq. (5) should be necessarily done at each timestep] or equivalently described by the corresponding coupled Langevin equations which are the counterpart of Eqs. (8) (9): σ = σ 22 = 2H h Im(σ 2) + R, (8) σ 2 = iǫ h σ 2 + ih h (σ σ 22 ) + σ 22 σ 2σ σ 22 Rσ 2 γ d σ 2, (9) where R is given by Eq. (6) and the last term in Eq. (9) will be discussed later (γ d = for an ideal detector). Figure 2 shows particular results of the Monte-Carlo simulations for the double-dot with ǫ = H and different strength of the interaction with an ideal detector. The electron is initially located in the first dot, σ () =. The dashed line shows the evolution of σ with no detector. Notice that because of the energy asymmetry, the initial asymmetry of the electron location remains in this case for infinite time. When the interaction with detector, C = h( I) 2 /S I H, is relatively small (top solid line), the evolution of σ is close to that without the detector. However, the electron gradually forgets the initial asymmetry and the evolution can be described as the slow variation of the phase and amplitude of oscillations (recall that the wavefunction remains pure). In the decoherence approach (averaging over realizations) this corresponds to σ /2 at t [24]. When the coupling with the detector increases, the evolution significantly changes (middle and bottom curves in Fig. 2). First, the transition between dots slows down (Quantum Zeno effect [37]; see also Refs. [8,,4,6,24,29,3]). Second, while the frequency of transitions decreases with increasing interaction with detector (at sufficiently strong coupling), the time of a transition (sort of traversal time) decreases, so eventually we can say about uncorrelated quantum jumps between states. The case C is completely analogous to the standard description of the quantum Zeno effect with frequent wavefunction reductions. In a regime of small coupling with detector, C, the detector output is too noisy to follow the evolution of σ ii. It does not give an accurate information about the electron position and, correspondingly, only slightly affects the oscillations. On contrary, when C the detector accurately informs about the position of electron and the jumps between states, and simultaneously destroys the internal oscillating dynamics of the system. Equations (8) (9) can be generalized for a nonideal detector, Γ d > ( I) 2 /4S I (as in Ref. [29]), which gives an observer less information than possible in principle. Let us model a nonideal detector as two ideal detectors in parallel, so that observer can read the output of the first of them while the output of the second detector is disregarded. Then the information loss can be represented by the extra decoherence term γ d σ 2 in Eq. (9) where γ d = Γ d ( I) 2 /4S I. The limiting case of a nonideal detector is the detector with no output (just an environment) or with disregarded output. Then the evolution equations reduce to the standard decoherence case described by Eqs. (8) (9). For nonideal detector it is meaningful to keep our old definition of the localization time, τ loc = τ dis = 2S I /( I) 2 while decoherence (in decoherence approach) occurs faster, τ d < 2τ loc. Actually, this means that if another observer is able to get more information (to read 4
5 the output of the second detector in a model above), then for him the localization time will be shorter. In other words, we define localization time not as a real physical quantity (that is meaningless because observer cannot check it) but as a quantity related to observer s information. Similarly, we can define the effective decoherence time as τ d = γ d. The main point of the present paper is that Eqs. (8) (9) can be used not only to simulate the measurement process, but also to obtain the actual evolution of the density matrix in an experiment provided the known detector output I(t) (high-frequency component of the output can be suppressed) and initial condition σ ij (). For this purpose the term R given by Eq. (6) should be replaced by R = σ σ 22 2 I S I [I(t) I ]. (2) Notice that even if the initial state is completely random, σ = σ 22 = /2, σ 2 =, the nondiagonal matrix element appears during the measurement because of acquired information, so that sufficiently long observation with an ideal detector leads to almost pure wavefunction (of course, this wavefunction does not have direct relation to the initial state but emerges during the measurement). Let us briefly discuss the philosophical aspect of the developed formalism. The statement that the pure wavefunction remains pure during the continuous measurement by an ideal detector (with known result) may seem surprising at first, however, we easily recognize that this is a direct analogy to the orthodox situation of a sharp measurement (the wavefunction is pure after the collapse ). Another important point is that the density matrix is in some sense observer-dependent. If an observer disregards the detector output, he can either average over all possible detector outcomes or assume the decoherence; both ways give the same result. Now if two observers have different level of access to the detector information (as, for example, in the model of nonideal detector considered above), then the density matrix for them will be different. Nevertheless, the observer with less information can safely use his density matrix for all purposes; the only difference he will be able to make less accurate predictions than the observer with complete knowledge of the detector output. There is no sense to speak about actual density matrix, it is meaningful to speak only about accessible density matrix. This statement obviously contradicts the point of view that the density matrix represents the objective reality. Simultaneously, this statement is completely consistent with the orthodox (Copenhagen) point of view that in quantum mechanics the reality is closely related to our knowledge about it, so the density matrix represents the indivisible mixture of the reality and our information about it. If the knowledge of the detector output is not used in the experiment, then the post-measurement density matrices should be averaged, leading (equivalently) to decoherence. On contrary, one can devise an experiment in which the subsequent system evolution depends on the preceding measurement result; then the only proper description is the pure wavefunction (for simplicity we assume ideal detector). For example, let us consider the double-dot with H = and fully coherent symmetric initial state. According to our formalism, after the measurement during some time τ (most interesting case is τ < τ loc) the wavefunction remains pure but becomes asymmetric (Eqs. () and (5)). This means that if an experimentalist can switch off the detector at t = τ, reduce the barrier between the dots (create finite H) and change the relative energies of the dots in a proper way, then after some definite time period the electron can be moved to the first dot with the probability equal to unity (the corresponding parameters can be easily calculated using σ ij (τ) [38]) that can be checked by the detector switched on again. Alternatively, using the knowledge of σ ij (τ) an experimentalist can exactly prepare the ground state of the coupled double-dot system and check it, for example, by the photon absorption. Another experimental idea is to start with completely random state of the double-dot with finite H and then gradually (most interesting case is Ωτ loc < ) obtain almost pure wavefunction using the detector output I(t) and Eqs. (8) (9). The final test of the wavefunction is similar to that considered above. An experiment of this kind would be able to verify the formalism developed in the present paper. While such an experiment is still a challenge for the present-day technology, we can hope that it will become realizable in the nearest future. In conclusion, we developed a simple formalism for the evolution of double-dot density matrix with account of the result of the continuous measurement by weakly coupled (weakly responding) point contact. The formalism is suitable for any two-level system measured by weakly coupled detector. The author thanks S. A. Gurvitz, D. V. Averin, and K. K. Likharev for fruitful discussions. The work was supported in part by French MENRT (PAST), Russian RFBR, and Russian Program on Nanoelectronics. The author will be grateful to receive comments. [] J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 955). [2] G. Lüders, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 8, 323 (95). [3] Quantum Theory of Measurement, ed. by J. A. Wheeler 5
6 and W. H. Zurek (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 983). [4] N. G. van Kempen, Physica A 53, 97 (988). [5] W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today, 44 (), 36 (99); Phys. Rev. D 24, 56 (98). [6] D. Bohm and J. Bub, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 453 (966). [7] P. Pearl, J. Stat. Phys. 4, 79 (985). [8] N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 657 (984); N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, J. Phys. A 25, 5677 (992). [9] L. Diosi, J. Phys. A 2, 2885 (988). [] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 47, 652 (993). [] V. P. Belavkin and P. Staszewsky, Phys. Rev. A 45, 347 (992). [2] G. C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. A 47, 449 (993). [3] J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 58 (992). [4] W. L. Power and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 53, 52 (996). [5] M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Rev. Mod. Phys. 7, (998). [6] W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A 4, 2295 (99). [7] A. Aspect, J. Dalibar, and G Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 84 (982). [8] M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Maitre, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4887 (996). [9] E. Buks, R. Schuster, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Nature 39, 87 (998). [2] W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, quantph/ [2] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (992); A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 66 (99). [22] C. Bennett, Phys. Today, Oct. 995, 24 (995); P. Shor, SIAM J. Computing 26, 486 (997); A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 733 (996). [23] A. Stern, Y. Aharonov, and J. Imry, Phys. Rev. A 4, 3436 (99). [24] S. A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. B 56, 525 (997). [25] I. L. Aleiner, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 374 (997). [26] Y. Levinson, Europhys. Lett. 39, 299 (997). [27] L. Stodolsky, quant-ph/9858. [28] B.-G. Englert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 254 (996). [29] A. Shnirman and G. Schön, Phys. Rev. B 57, 54 (998). [3] S. A. Gurvitz, quant-ph/9865. [3] The energy shift due to interaction with the detector discussed in Ref. [27] can be included in ǫ. (Actually, the shift is zero in our particular model because the phase of the detector electrons is not altered.) [32] G. B. Lesovik, JETP Lett. 49, 59 (989). [33] In the case T Eq. (5) should be replaced by I ( T )I S I/e. [34] Actually, this statement is not so trivial but follows from the general quantum mechanical ideas. [35] If we formally apply a similar approach to the case I I, we obtain Reσ 2(τ) /(σ ()σ 22()) /2 [2 S IS I2/(S I + S I2)] /2 exp[ τ( I) 2 /2(S I + S I2)]. FIG.. Thick line: particular Monte-Carlo realization of σ evolution in time during the measurement of uncoupled dots, H =. Initial state is symmetric, σ () = σ 22() = /2, while the measurement leads to gradual localization. Initially pure wavefunction remains pure at any time t. Thin line shows the corresponding detector current I averaged over the whole time interval starting from t = while the dashed line is the current averaged over the running window with duration S I/( I) 2. FIG. 2. Random evolution of σ (particular Monte-Carlo realizations) for asymmetric double-dot, ǫ = H, with the electron initially in the first dot, σ () =, for different strength of coupling with detector: C = h( I) 2 /S IH =.3, 3, and 3 from top to bottom. Dashed line represents C = (unmeasured double-dot). Increasing coupling with detector destroys the quantum oscillations (while wavefunction remains pure at any t), slows down the transitions between states (Quantum Zeno effect), and for C leads to uncorrelated jumps between well localized states. Then the result of Ref. [24] is smaller than our upper bound for large τ, while it is larger for τ < Γ d e/i. The latter unphysical situation is because the detector cannot be described classically in this case. [36] Notice that Eqs. () and (5) can be readily obtained from the standard reduction procedure, σ(τ) = A/TrA, A = P( I,τ)σ() P( I,τ), if the generalized projection operator P( I,τ) is defined as P ii = [P i( I,τ)] /2, P 2 = P 2 =. [37] B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 8, 756 (977). [38] To move the electron to the first dot with certainty (provided the pure wavefunction) one can, for example, create ǫ = [( 4 σ 2 2 ) /2 ]HReσ 2/ σ 2 2 and wait for a time t = [π arcsin(imσ 2 hω/h)]/ω. 6
7 2. σ, (<I> -I 2 )/(I -I 2 ) t/(s I / I 2 ) Fig. σ (t) σ (t).5.5! I 2 /S I H=.3 3 σ (t).5 3 ε =H t (H/!) Fig. 2
Simple quantum feedback. of a solid-state qubit
e Vg qubit (SCPB) V Outline: detector (SET) Simple quantum feedback of a solid-state qubit Alexander Korotkov Goal: keep coherent oscillations forever qubit detector controller fidelity APS 5, LA, 3//5.....3.4
More informationQuantum efficiency of binary-outcome detectors of solid-state qubits
Quantum efficiency of binary-outcome detectors of solid-state qubits Alexander N. Korotkov Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA Received 23 June
More informationQuantum feedback control of solid-state qubits
Quantum feedback control of solid-state qubits The system we consider: qubit + detector qubit H e Vg V I(t) detector I(t) I(t) Double-quantum-qot (DQD) and quantum point contact (QPC) e Cooper-pair box
More informationNoisy quantum measurement of solid-state qubits: Bayesian approach
Noisy quantum measurement of solid-state qubits: Bayesian approach Outline: Bayesian formalism Continuous measurement of a single qubit deal and nonideal solid-state detectors Bayesian formalism for entangled
More information(b) (c) (a) V g. V I(t) I(t) qubit. detector I(t) Proc. of SPIE Vol
Invited Paper Noisy quantum measurement of solid-state qubits Alexander N. Korotkov Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 ABSTRACT The quantum evolution of
More informationSemiclassical formulation
The story so far: Transport coefficients relate current densities and electric fields (currents and voltages). Can define differential transport coefficients + mobility. Drude picture: treat electrons
More informationInstant Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Instant Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Huy Khanh Hoang E-mail: hoang.huy.khanh@gmail.com We suggest a new interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in which the system state vectors are identified with
More informationTELEPORTATION OF ATOMIC STATES VIA CAVITY QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS
TELEPORTATION OF ATOMIC STATES VIA CAVITY QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS arxiv:quant-ph/0409194v1 7 Sep 004 E. S. Guerra Departamento de Física Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro Cx. Postal 3851, 3890-000
More informationMESOSCOPIC QUANTUM OPTICS
MESOSCOPIC QUANTUM OPTICS by Yoshihisa Yamamoto Ata Imamoglu A Wiley-Interscience Publication JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. New York Chichester Weinheim Brisbane Toronto Singapore Preface xi 1 Basic Concepts
More informationEinstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities Jan Schütz November 27, 2005 Abstract Considering the Gedankenexperiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as example the nonlocal character of quantum
More informationSimple quantum feedback of a solid-state qubit
Simple quantum feedback of a solid-state qubit Alexander Korotkov H =H [ F φ m (t)] control qubit CÜ detector I(t) cos(ω t), τ-average sin(ω t), τ-average X Y phase φ m Feedback loop maintains Rabi oscillations
More informationCoherent superposition states as quantum rulers
PHYSICAL REVIEW A, VOLUME 65, 042313 Coherent superposition states as quantum rulers T. C. Ralph* Centre for Quantum Computer Technology, Department of Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
More informationQuantum feedback control of solid-state qubits and their entanglement by measurement
NANO 4, St. Petersburg, June 4 Quantum feedback control of solid-state qubits and their entanglement by measurement Rusko Ruskov and Outline: Continuous measurement of a single qubit Bayesian formalism
More informationContinuous quantum measurement process in stochastic phase-methods of quantum dynamics: Classicality from quantum measurement
Continuous quantum measurement process in stochastic phase-methods of quantum dynamics: Classicality from quantum measurement Janne Ruostekoski University of Southampton Juha Javanainen University of Connecticut
More informationContinuous fuzzy measurement of energy for a two-level system
arxiv:quant-ph/9703049v1 26 Mar 1997 Continuous fuzzy measurement of energy for a two-level system Jürgen Audretsch Michael Mensky Fakultät für Physik der Universität Konstanz Postfach 5560 M 674, D-78434
More informationTwo-State Vector Formalism
802 Two-State Vector Formalism Secondary Literature 9. E. Merzbacher: Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York 1970) 10. S. Gasiorowicz: Quantum Physics (Wiley, New York 1996) 11. A. Sommerfeld: Lectures
More informationWeak measurements: subensembles from tunneling to Let s Make a Quantum Deal to Hardy s Paradox
Weak measurements: subensembles from tunneling to Let s Make a Quantum Deal to Hardy s Paradox First: some more on tunneling times, by way of motivation... How does one discuss subensembles in quantum
More informationDecoherence and The Collapse of Quantum Mechanics. A Modern View
Decoherence and The Collapse of Quantum Mechanics A Modern View It s time to make decoherence mainstream QM is ~90 years old But it is still taught like the 1930s Modern textbooks still ignore measurement
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
doi:10.1038/nature11505 I. DEVICE PARAMETERS The Josephson (E J and charging energy (E C of the transmon qubit were determined by qubit spectroscopy which yielded transition frequencies ω 01 /π =5.4853
More informationQuantum error correction in the presence of spontaneous emission
PHYSICAL REVIEW A VOLUME 55, NUMBER 1 JANUARY 1997 Quantum error correction in the presence of spontaneous emission M. B. Plenio, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London,
More informationMixed-state sensitivity of several quantum-information benchmarks
PHYSICAL REVIEW A 70, 05309 (004) Mixed-state sensitivity of several quantum-information benchmarks Nicholas A. Peters, Tzu-Chieh Wei, and Paul G. Kwiat Physics Department, University of Illinois, 1110
More informationComment on a Proposed Super-Kamiokande Test for Quantum Gravity Induced Decoherence Effects
IASSNS-HEP-00/43 June, 2000 Comment on a Proposed Super-Kamiokande Test for Quantum Gravity Induced Decoherence Effects Stephen L. Adler Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, NJ 08540 Send correspondence
More informationElectron counting with quantum dots
Electron counting with quantum dots Klaus Ensslin Solid State Physics Zürich with S. Gustavsson I. Shorubalko R. Leturcq T. Ihn A. C. Gossard Time-resolved charge detection Single photon detection Time-resolved
More informationarxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 25 Jun 1999
CHARGE RELAXATION IN THE PRESENCE OF SHOT NOISE IN COULOMB COUPLED MESOSCOPIC SYSTEMS arxiv:cond-mat/9906386v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 25 Jun 1999 MARKUS BÜTTIKER Département de Physique Théorique, Université
More informationQuantum transport in nanoscale solids
Quantum transport in nanoscale solids The Landauer approach Dietmar Weinmann Institut de Physique et Chimie des Matériaux de Strasbourg Strasbourg, ESC 2012 p. 1 Quantum effects in electron transport R.
More informationmpipks Dresden Distinction of pointer states in (more) realistic environments Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems Klaus Hornberger
Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems Klaus Hornberger Distinction of pointer states in (more) realistic environments In collaboration with Johannes Trost & Marc Busse Benasque, September
More informationLEVEL REPULSION IN INTEGRABLE SYSTEMS
LEVEL REPULSION IN INTEGRABLE SYSTEMS Tao Ma and R. A. Serota Department of Physics University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45244-0011 serota@ucmail.uc.edu Abstract Contrary to conventional wisdom, level
More informationarxiv:gr-qc/ v1 1 May 1993
KFKI-RMKI-28-APR-1993Unique Quantum Paths by Continuous Diagonalization of the Density Operator arxiv:gr-qc/9304046v1 1 May 1993 Lajos Diósi KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525
More informationInformation Entropy Squeezing of a Two-Level Atom Interacting with Two-Mode Coherent Fields
Commun. Theor. Phys. (Beijing, China) 4 (004) pp. 103 109 c International Academic Publishers Vol. 4, No. 1, July 15, 004 Information Entropy Squeezing of a Two-Level Atom Interacting with Two-Mode Coherent
More information2 Introduction The quantum measurement is an essential ingredient of investigations of quantum coherent eects. In particular, it is needed to probe ma
READING-OUT A QUANTUM STATE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE QUANTUM MEASUREMENT PROCESS Yu. Makhlin Institut fur Theoretische Festkorperphysik, Universitat Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe Landau Institute for Theoretical
More informationQuantum mechanical complementarity probed in a closed-loop Aharonov-Bohm interferometer
Quantum mechanical complementarity probed in a closed-loop Aharonov-Bohm interferometer Dong-In Chang 1, Gyong Luck Khym 1,2, Kicheon Kang 2, Yunchul Chung 3, Hu-Jong Lee 1,4, Minky Seo 3, Moty Heiblum
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 31 Jul 2009
Semiclassical Dynamics from Zeno-Like measurements R. Rossi Jr., 1 K.M. Fonseca Romero, 2 and M. C. Nemes 3 1 Universidade Federal de São João del-rei, arxiv:0907.5525v1 [quant-ph] 31 Jul 2009 Campus Alto
More informationNoise and measurement efficiency of a partially coherent mesoscopic detector
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 69, 4533 4 Noise and measurement efficiency of a partially coherent mesoscopic detector A. A. Clerk and A. D. Stone Departments of Applied Physics and Physics, Yale University, New Haven,
More informationQuantum Mechanics without Complex Numbers: A Simple Model for the Electron Wavefunction Including Spin. Alan M. Kadin* Princeton Junction, NJ
Quantum Mechanics without Complex Numbers: A Simple Model for the Electron Wavefunction Including Spin Alan M. Kadin* Princeton Junction, NJ February 22, 2005 Abstract: A simple real-space model for the
More informationON POSITIVE-OPERATOR-VALUED MEASURE FOR PHASE MEASUREMENTS. Abstract. The unnormalizable Susskind-Glogower (SG) phase eigenstates, which
ON POSITIVE-OPERATOR-VALUED MEASURE FOR PHASE MEASUREMENTS Qianbing Zheng and Takayoshi Kobayashi Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 15 Jun 1999
arxiv:quant-ph/9906049v1 15 Jun 1999 Bell inequality and the locality loophole: Active versus passive switches N. Gisin and H. Zbinden Group of Applied Physics University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
More informationThe Two-State Vector Formalism
arxiv:0706.1347v1 [quant-ph] 10 Jun 007 The Two-State Vector Formalism February 1, 013 The two-state vector formalism (TSVF) [1] is a time-symmetric description of the standard quantum mechanics originated
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 16 Feb 2007
Why quantum dynamics is linear Thomas F. Jordan Physics Department, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota 55812 Quantum dynamics is linear. How do we know? From theory or experiment? The history of
More informationON A FORMAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM THEORY
Physics Letters A 174, 353 357 (1992) PACS Number: 03.65.Bz ON A FORMAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND STATISTICAL INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM THEORY M. Pavičić Laboratoire de Méchanique Quantique,
More informationA Simple Model of Quantum Trajectories. Todd A. Brun University of Southern California
A Simple Model of Quantum Trajectories Todd A. Brun University of Southern California Outline 1. Review projective and generalized measurements. 2. A simple model of indirect measurement. 3. Weak measurements--jump-like
More informationPHY 435 / 635 Decoherence and Open Quantum Systems Instructor: Sebastian Wüster, IISERBhopal,2018
Week 10 PHY 435 / 635 Decoherence and Open Quantum Systems Instructor: Sebastian Wüster, IISERBhopal,2018 These notes are provided for the students of the class above only. There is no warranty for correctness,
More informationDecoherence : An Irreversible Process
Decoherence : An Irreversible Process Roland Omnès Laboratoire de Physique Théorique Université deparisxi,bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France Abstract A wide-ranging theory of decoherence is derived
More informationMeasurement theory for phase qubits
Measurement theory for phase qubits Co-P.I. Alexander Korotkov, UC Riverside The team: 1) Qin Zhang, graduate student ) Dr. Abraham Kofman, researcher (started in June 005) 3) Alexander Korotkov, associate
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v2 21 May 1998
Minimum Inaccuracy for Traversal-Time J. Oppenheim (a), B. Reznik (b), and W. G. Unruh (a) (a) Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Rd. Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T1Z1
More informationQuantum Mechanics as Reality or Potentiality from A Psycho-Biological Perspective
Quantum Mechanics as Reality or Potentiality from A Psycho-Biological Perspective F. K. Jansen 1 Abstract Quantum mechanics are generally interpreted as physical reality with superposition of wave functions,
More informationSlow and stored light using Rydberg atoms
Slow and stored light using Rydberg atoms Julius Ruseckas Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astronomy, Vilnius University, Lithuania April 28, 2016 Julius Ruseckas (Lithuania) Rydberg slow light April
More informationTHE problem of phase noise and its influence on oscillators
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS II: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 54, NO. 5, MAY 2007 435 Phase Diffusion Coefficient for Oscillators Perturbed by Colored Noise Fergal O Doherty and James P. Gleeson Abstract
More informationSuperposition of two mesoscopically distinct quantum states: Coupling a Cooper-pair box to a large superconducting island
PHYSICAL REVIEW B, VOLUME 63, 054514 Superposition of two mesoscopically distinct quantum states: Coupling a Cooper-pair box to a large superconducting island Florian Marquardt* and C. Bruder Departement
More informationBound states of two particles confined to parallel two-dimensional layers and interacting via dipole-dipole or dipole-charge laws
PHYSICAL REVIEW B VOLUME 55, NUMBER 8 15 FEBRUARY 1997-II Bound states of two particles confined to parallel two-dimensional layers and interacting via dipole-dipole or dipole-charge laws V. I. Yudson
More informationSpin-Boson Model. A simple Open Quantum System. M. Miller F. Tschirsich. Quantum Mechanics on Macroscopic Scales Theory of Condensed Matter July 2012
Spin-Boson Model A simple Open Quantum System M. Miller F. Tschirsich Quantum Mechanics on Macroscopic Scales Theory of Condensed Matter July 2012 Outline 1 Bloch-Equations 2 Classical Dissipations 3 Spin-Boson
More informationII. The Machinery of Quantum Mechanics
II. The Machinery of Quantum Mechanics Based on the results of the experiments described in the previous section, we recognize that real experiments do not behave quite as we expect. This section presents
More informationarxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 11 Nov 2006
Crossover of phase qubit dynamics in presence of negative-result weak measurement arxiv:cond-mat/0611296v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 11 Nov 2006 Rusko Ruskov 1, Ari Mizel 1, and Alexander N. Korotkov 2 1 Department
More informationarxiv:cond-mat/ v1 27 Feb 1996
Single-Electron Parametron: Reversible Computation in a Discrete State System Konstantin K. Likharev 1 and Alexander N. Korotkov 1,2 1 Department of Physics, State University of New York, arxiv:cond-mat/9602140v1
More informationQuantum correlations and decoherence in systems of interest for the quantum information processing
Universita' degli Studi di Milano Physics, Astrophysics and Applied Physics PhD School: 1 st Year-Student Mini-Workshop Quantum correlations and decoherence in systems of interest for the quantum information
More informationThe Physics of Nanoelectronics
The Physics of Nanoelectronics Transport and Fluctuation Phenomena at Low Temperatures Tero T. Heikkilä Low Temperature Laboratory, Aalto University, Finland OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Contents List of symbols
More informationGiant Enhancement of Quantum Decoherence by Frustrated Environments
ISSN 0021-3640, JETP Letters, 2006, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 99 103. Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2006.. Giant Enhancement of Quantum Decoherence by Frustrated Environments S. Yuan a, M. I. Katsnelson b, and
More informationQuantum Measurements: some technical background
Quantum Measurements: some technical background [From the projection postulate to density matrices & (introduction to) von Neumann measurements] (AKA: the boring lecture) First: One more example I wanted
More informationExploring the quantum dynamics of atoms and photons in cavities. Serge Haroche, ENS and Collège de France, Paris
Exploring the quantum dynamics of atoms and photons in cavities Serge Haroche, ENS and Collège de France, Paris Experiments in which single atoms and photons are manipulated in high Q cavities are modern
More information221A Lecture Notes Convergence of Perturbation Theory
A Lecture Notes Convergence of Perturbation Theory Asymptotic Series An asymptotic series in a parameter ɛ of a function is given in a power series f(ɛ) = f n ɛ n () n=0 where the series actually does
More informationDetermination of the tunnel rates through a few-electron quantum dot
Determination of the tunnel rates through a few-electron quantum dot R. Hanson 1,I.T.Vink 1, D.P. DiVincenzo 2, L.M.K. Vandersypen 1, J.M. Elzerman 1, L.H. Willems van Beveren 1 and L.P. Kouwenhoven 1
More informationPHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix
PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix Here follows a short summary of the definitions of qubits, EPR states, entanglement, the density matrix, pure states, mixed states, measurement, and
More informationZeno logic gates using micro-cavities
Zeno logic gates using micro-cavities J.D. Franson, B.C. Jacobs, and T.B. Pittman Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723 The linear optics approach to quantum computing
More informationQuantum decoherence of excitons in a leaky cavity with quasimode
PHYSICAL REVIEW A, VOLUME 63, 33816 Quantum decoherence of excitons in a leaky cavity with quasimode Yu-xi Liu, C. P. Sun, and S. X. Yu Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, P.O. Box 2735,
More informationBell inequality for qunits with binary measurements
Bell inequality for qunits with binary measurements arxiv:quant-ph/0204122v1 21 Apr 2002 H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and N. Gisin Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, CH-1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland
More informationThe Measurement Problem
The Measurement Problem Johannes Kofler Quantum Foundations Seminar Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics Munich, December 12 th 2011 The measurement problem Different aspects: How does the wavefunction
More informationQuantum Images and the Measurement Process
EJTP 4, No. 14 (2007) 121 128 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics Quantum Images and the Measurement Process Fariel Shafee Department of Physics Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08540 USA Received
More informationIntroduction to Theory of Mesoscopic Systems
Introduction to Theory of Mesoscopic Systems Boris Altshuler Princeton University, Columbia University & NEC Laboratories America Lecture 5 Beforehand Yesterday Today Anderson Localization, Mesoscopic
More informationQuantum measurement via Born-Oppenheimer adiabatic dynamics
PHYSICAL REVIEW A, VOLUME 63, 012111 Quantum measurement via Born-Oppenheimer adiabatic dynamics C. P. Sun, 1,2 X. F. Liu, 3 D. L. Zhou, 1 and S. X. Yu 1 1 Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 6 Dec 1999
A Quantum Logic Gate Representation of Quantum Measurement: Reversing and Unifying the Two Steps of von Neumann s Model Giuseppe Castagnoli arxiv:quant-ph/9912020v1 6 Dec 1999 Elsag spa, Via Puccini 2,
More informationS.K. Saikin May 22, Lecture 13
S.K. Saikin May, 007 13 Decoherence I Lecture 13 A physical qubit is never isolated from its environment completely. As a trivial example, as in the case of a solid state qubit implementation, the physical
More informationSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Fast spin information transfer between distant quantum dots using individual electrons B. Bertrand, S. Hermelin, S. Takada, M. Yamamoto, S. Tarucha, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, C. Bäuerle, T. Meunier* Content
More informationMesoscopic Nano-Electro-Mechanics of Shuttle Systems
* Mesoscopic Nano-Electro-Mechanics of Shuttle Systems Robert Shekhter University of Gothenburg, Sweden Lecture1: Mechanically assisted single-electronics Lecture2: Quantum coherent nano-electro-mechanics
More informationarxiv:atom-ph/ v1 15 Mar 1996
Quantum Reservoir Engineering J.F. Poyatos, J.I. Cirac, and P. Zoller Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, A 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. arxiv:atom-ph/9603002v1 15
More informationLecture 12. Electron Transport in Molecular Wires Possible Mechanisms
Lecture 12. Electron Transport in Molecular Wires Possible Mechanisms In Lecture 11, we have discussed energy diagrams of one-dimensional molecular wires. Here we will focus on electron transport mechanisms
More informationJoint measurement of interference and path observables in optics and neutron interferometry 1
Joint measurement of interference and path observables in optics and neutron interferometry W.M. de Muynck W.W. Stoffels and H. Martens Department of Theoretical Physics Eindhoven University of Technology
More informationAnalysis of Bell inequality violation in superconducting phase qubits
Analysis of Bell inequality violation in superconducting phase qubits Abraham G. Kofman and Alexander N. Korotkov Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California, Riverside, California 92521,
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v2 2 Jun 2002
Position measuring interactions and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle Masanao Ozawa Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tôhoku University, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8579, Japan arxiv:quant-ph/0107001v2
More informationWhen Worlds Collide: Quantum Probability From Observer Selection?
When Worlds Collide: Quantum Probability From Observer Selection? arxiv:quant-ph/0108070v1 14 Aug 2001 Robin Hanson Department of Economics George Mason University August 9, 2001 Abstract Deviations from
More informationINTRODUCTORY NOTES ON QUANTUM COMPUTATION
INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON QUANTUM COMPUTATION Keith Hannabuss Balliol College, Oxford Hilary Term 2009 Notation. In these notes we shall often use the physicists bra-ket notation, writing ψ for a vector ψ
More informationLogical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation
Logical error rate in the Pauli twirling approximation Amara Katabarwa and Michael R. Geller Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA (Dated: April 10, 2015)
More informationIs quantum linear superposition exact on all energy scales? A unique case study with flavour oscillating systems
Is quantum linear superposition exact on all energy scales? A unique case study with flavour oscillating systems Supervisor: Dr. Beatrix C. Hiesmayr Universität Wien, Fakultät für Physik March 17, 2015
More informationQuantum annealing for problems with ground-state degeneracy
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Statistical-Mechanical Informatics September 14 17, 2008, Sendai, Japan Quantum annealing for problems with ground-state degeneracy Yoshiki Matsuda 1, Hidetoshi
More informationEntanglement from the vacuum
Entanglement from the vacuum arxiv:quant-ph/0212044v2 27 Jan 2003 Benni Reznik School of Physics and Astronomy Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. e-mail:reznik@post.tau.ac.il July 23, 2013 We
More informationQuantum control of dissipative systems. 1 Density operators and mixed quantum states
Quantum control of dissipative systems S. G. Schirmer and A. I. Solomon Quantum Processes Group, The Open University Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom S.G.Schirmer@open.ac.uk, A.I.Solomon@open.ac.uk
More informationRate Constants from Uncorrelated Single-Molecule Data
646 J. Phys. Chem. B 001, 105, 646-650 Rate Constants from Uncorrelated Single-Molecule Data Marián Boguñá, Lisen Kullman, Sergey M. Bezrukov,, Alexander M. Berezhkovskii,, and George H. Weiss*, Center
More informationA scheme for protecting one-qubit information against erasure. error. Abstract
A scheme for protecting one-qubit information against erasure error Chui-Ping Yang 1, Shih-I Chu 1, and Siyuan Han 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Kansas, and Kansas Center for Advanced Scientific
More informationQuantum Noise and Quantum Measurement
Quantum Noise and Quantum Measurement (APS Tutorial on Quantum Measurement)!F(t) Aashish Clerk McGill University (With thanks to S. Girvin, F. Marquardt, M. Devoret) t Use quantum noise to understand quantum
More informationarxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 16 Oct 2018
Decoherence allows quantum theory to describe the use of itself Armando Relaño Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica, and GISC, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v4 17 Jan 2005
Understanding Popper s experiment Tabish Qureshi Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-5, India An experiment proposed by Karl Popper is considered by many to be a crucial test of quantum
More informationarxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 26 Oct 2017
Hidden Variable Theory of a Single World from Many-Worlds Quantum Mechanics Don Weingarten donweingarten@hotmail.com We propose a method for finding an initial state vector which by ordinary Hamiltonian
More informationQUANTUM INTERFERENCE IN SEMICONDUCTOR RINGS
QUANTUM INTERFERENCE IN SEMICONDUCTOR RINGS PhD theses Orsolya Kálmán Supervisors: Dr. Mihály Benedict Dr. Péter Földi University of Szeged Faculty of Science and Informatics Doctoral School in Physics
More informationHardwiring Maxwell s Demon Tobias Brandes (Institut für Theoretische Physik, TU Berlin)
Hardwiring Maxwell s Demon Tobias Brandes (Institut für Theoretische Physik, TU Berlin) Introduction. Feedback loops in transport by hand. by hardwiring : thermoelectric device. Maxwell demon limit. Co-workers:
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v2 3 Oct 2000
Quantum key distribution without alternative measurements Adán Cabello Departamento de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Sevilla, 0 Sevilla, Spain January, 0 arxiv:quant-ph/990v Oct 000 Entanglement swapping
More informationCollapse versus correlations, EPR, Bell Inequalities, Cloning
Collapse versus correlations, EPR, Bell Inequalities, Cloning The Quantum Eraser, continued Equivalence of the collapse picture and just blithely/blindly calculating correlations EPR & Bell No cloning
More informationMonopole polarization of C 60 fullerene shell
Monopole polarization of C 6 fullerene shell M. Ya. Amusia 1, and A. S. Baltenkov 3 1 Racah Institute of Physics, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 9194 Israel Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, St. Petersburg,
More informationC.W. Gardiner. P. Zoller. Quantum Nois e. A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovia n Quantum Stochastic Method s with Applications to Quantum Optics
C.W. Gardiner P. Zoller Quantum Nois e A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovia n Quantum Stochastic Method s with Applications to Quantum Optics 1. A Historical Introduction 1 1.1 Heisenberg's Uncertainty
More informationQuantum measurement theory and micro-macro consistency in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics
Nagoya Winter Workshop on Quantum Information, Measurement, and Quantum Foundations (Nagoya, February 18-23, 2010) Quantum measurement theory and micro-macro consistency in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics
More informationChapter 2: Interacting Rydberg atoms
Chapter : Interacting Rydberg atoms I. DIPOLE-DIPOLE AND VAN DER WAALS INTERACTIONS In the previous chapter, we have seen that Rydberg atoms are very sensitive to external electric fields, with their polarizability
More informationarxiv:quant-ph/ v1 4 Mar 2005
Quantum Information Processing using coherent states in cavity QED Ming Yang 1, and Zhuo-Liang Cao 1, 1 School of Physics & Material Science, Anhui University, Hefei, 230039, PRChina Using the highly detuned
More informationSpin-Polarized Current in Coulomb Blockade and Kondo Regime
Vol. 112 (2007) ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA A No. 2 Proceedings of the XXXVI International School of Semiconducting Compounds, Jaszowiec 2007 Spin-Polarized Current in Coulomb Blockade and Kondo Regime P. Ogrodnik
More information